Climate Conversation Group

Taking the heat out of global warming

For the first time in history, people shouting “the end is nigh” are somehow
the sane ones, while those of us who say it is not are now the lunatics.

  • Home
  • Newsletter
  • Opinion polls
    • SckSckSck
    • Your view of CO2
    • Collective noun for icebergs
    • Stop the ETS
  • News releases
    • February 8, 2010
  • Climate Realists
    • Newsletter #17 6 May 2010
    • Newsletter #16 28 Apr 2010
    • Newsletter #6 11 Feb 2010
  • Carbon Sense
    • Newsletter Feb 15, 2010
  • Files
    • Wind turbine failures
  • About
    • New address
  • Contact

Which side gets the money?

Richard | July 23, 2009 | 11:59 pm

The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far—trillions to come

Jo Nova has just published a document showing where the money has been coming from and which side in the climate debate is getting the benefit. It’s dynamite. Jo describes it:

For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?

The Summary

  • The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
  • Despite the billions, “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
  • Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion, making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
  • Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
  • The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction”.

Billions in the Name of “Climate”

In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from other governments. The real total can only grow.

In 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. Today in various forms the funding has leapt to over $7,000 million per annum, around 50 fold higher. Tax concessions add to this. (See below for details and sources.)

This tally is climbing precipitously. With enormous tax breaks and rescue funds now in play, it’s difficult to know just how far over the $7 billion mark the final total will stand for fiscal year 2009. For example, additional funding for carbon sequestration experiments alone amounted to $3.4 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (not included in the $7 billion total above).

The most telling point is that after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate.

I want to repeat that: “after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate.”

Read the Full Report at the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Categories
Global warming
Tags
Joanne Nova, Science bias, Science funding, SPPI
Comments rss
Comments rss
Trackback
Trackback

« It’s your footprint. What is it to me? Nature, not man, responsible for recent global warming »

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

 

Thanks to WordShine for hosting our site. Professional editing services and academic editing — WordShine for polished writing.
What's your opinion?
Stop the ETS — is it madness? Should we stop the ETS?
sckscksck — is the earth warming dangerously from human activities?
Your view of CO2 — does CO2 dominate the climate?
Exercise your word skills — what's the best collective noun for icebergs?

Big Button email campaign

email button

Stop the ETS

Press this Little Button. Read the article. Press the Big Button to set up an email to the Prime Minister. Change the email address to send the message to your local MP or Nick Smith or anyone. Change the message if you like! Add your name! Click Send!
Click to get your own widget

Interested in oil prices?

Scroll down to see a nifty little widget that graphs oil prices back five years.

Recent Posts

  • Don’t lie to me Nick Smith — 1
  • Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight
  • Gluckman stumbles, Part 2 – Sludge
  • Gluckman stumbles on the truth
  • Sorry for my absence
  • NZ ETS missing its target
  • Wellington protest against the ETS
  • PM’s Chief Science Adviser must change — or go
  • Climate scepticism attracting powerful friends
  • When will our bloody journalists wake up?
  • Gluckman — great baby doctor but no climate scientist
  • We’re alone in these trenches, Nick
  • We are cretins ruled by delusions
  • NIWA temperature series problems — Part 1
  • Marc Morano — merry motor-mouth

Latest comments

  • jaymam on Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight
  • jaymam on Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight
  • Andy on Don’t lie to me Nick Smith — 1
  • Richard Treadgold on Don’t lie to me Nick Smith — 1
  • Andy on Don’t lie to me Nick Smith — 1
  • Richard Treadgold on Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight
  • Climate Conversation Group » Don’t lie to me Nick Smith — 1 on Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight
  • Bulaman on Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight
  • Richard Treadgold on Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight
  • Richard Treadgold on Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight
  • ray on Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight
  • Bulaman on Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight
  • Bulaman on Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight
  • Andy on Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight
  • Bulaman on Nick Smith on ETS in Auckland tonight

Admin

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Tags

ACT Activists Administration AGW Air temperature Australia Carbon dioxide Carbon Sense Carbon trading Climate Conversation Group Climate Depot Climate profiteering Climate research Climate Science Climate Skeptic Clouds CRU leak Data quality Disproving AGW Energy supply ETS Glaciers Global warming Hot Topic Injustice IPCC Joanne Nova Michael Mann New Zealand NIWA NIWAgate NZCSC NZ Herald NZ temperature records Peter Gluckman Peter Spencer Rajendra Pachauri Rodney Hide Royal Society Roy Spencer Sceptics Science bias UK Watts Up With That Wind turbines

Categories

Climate change links

  • Carbon Sense Coalition
  • Climate Audit—a science blog
  • Climate Debate Daily
  • Climate Depot
  • Global warming at a glance
  • NZ Climate Science Coalition
  • Watts Up With That

 

July 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Blog stats

page loads since August 2008

Previous posts

Oil price trends

 
 

"Your word is no longer enough, sir; you must give evidence. Without it, why should we bear you? If it is the least you give, it is all you have."

rss Comments rss valid xhtml 1.1 design by jide powered by Wordpress get firefox